Review Petition filed against a judgment allowing a sales tax recovery petition on settlement grounds. Court allowed the Review Petition due to factual wrongs regarding the sale of property during pendency, vacated the judgment, and restored the underlying petition.
Review Petition allowed; judgment in O.P. vacated; O.P. restored to file.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
FRIDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2007 / 12TH SRAVANA 1929
RP.No. 602 of 2007() -------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.29551/2002 Dated 18/10/2006 ....................
REVIEW PETITIONER:
SHEHSAD, AGED 24, S/O. SAINULABDEEN, SANA RESIDENCY, GRAFFF HILL, SREEKARYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHAHUL HAMEED, AGED 63 YEARS, KANNIMEL VEEDU, MAYANADU P.O., KOLLAM 15
BY ADV. SRI.V.V.RAJA SRI.R.RENJITH
RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS IN OP
R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN (SR.) SRI.P.A.HARISH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J.
R.P.NO. 602 OF 2007 in
O.P. NO. 29551 OF 2002
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2007
O R D E R
Original Petition was filed by a person who was a defaulter of
arrears of sales tax and a debtor to Syndicate Bank. In recovery proceedings, his property was sold to the 7th respondent in the O.P. When the Original Petition came up for hearing, it was reported that petitioner in the O.P. and the purchaser of the property, namely, 7th respondent, had settled the matter between them. Further, petitioner in the O.P. undertook to clear the arrears of tax with reduced interest under the Amnesty Scheme. In the circumstances, O. P. was allowed vide judgment dated 18.10.2006.
2
O.P. submitted that he had not made any representation in Court. In any case, since counsel appearing for the 7th respondent in the O.P. and counsel appearing for him in the Review Petition being different, this is a matter which cannot be decided in Review Petition. In any case, the grounds stated in the Review Petition as such have to be allowed by recalling the judgment, because facts based on which judgment was rendered are clearly wrong. In the circumstances, Review Petition is allowed vacating the judgment and restoring the O.P. to file. It will be open to the Review Petitioner to initiate appropriate action against the 8th respondent in the Review Petition for selling the property during the pendency of the O.P. without approval from the Court.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge
3
SHEHSAD
K. SHEREFFUDDIN
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF KERALA
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, KOLLAM
MR. SAINULABUDDIN
C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
